Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 95 (JHR)

Janeshwar Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2011-02-15

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2011
Order This writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed. on behalf of the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent no. 4, the disciplinary authority by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment by way of stopping of increments for one year and making to two black marks. He has further prayed for payment of salary of suspension period. 2. In a nutshell, it is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was asked to be present at 5.30 by the station officer of the P.S. in the morning to accompany him in connection with the supervision of Booth where the election was to be held during the course for the day. Petitioner refused to accompany the station officer and he had stated that he was tired and he could not accompany the station officer. He also abused the driver of the vehicle who was to go with the station officer on duty. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in which he was awarded the punishment as aforesaid. In appeal the order of punishment was confirmed by the appellate authority (respondent no. 3). 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority to make enquiry and the enquiry officer after recording the entire evidence, exonerated the petitioner from" charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered the case of the petitioner and disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, awarded the punishment to the petitioner. He further pointed out that the disciplinary authority did not indicate reasons by which he differed with the findings of the enquiry officer nor any notice was also given to the petitioner after recording his reasons and he was straightway awarded the punishment by the departmental authorities. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions. 4 I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, after going through the entire records, found that the petitioner has been wrongly exonerated by the enquiry officer and he gave his own reasonings and punished the petitioner. It is an admitted case of the parties that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, after going through the entire records, found that the petitioner has been wrongly exonerated by the enquiry officer and he gave his own reasonings and punished the petitioner. It is also admitted that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority were never communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner was punished without notice as referred to above. 6. Analyzing the above situation, it is clearly transpired that the principles of natural justice has been violated while awarding punishment to the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that the disciplinary authority can differ with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority will have to give his own reasons in coming to the conclusion that the delinquent is guilty of the charges. But it is also necessary that while proceeding to award punishment to the delinquent, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority holding the delinquent guilty should be given to the delinquent. In absence of the said notice it can only be concluded that the principles of natural justice has been violated. 7. When the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry officer of any charge against the delinquent, it must record reasons for disagreeing with the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and the' delinquent must be given an opportunity to represent before it records its finding. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings has to be given to the delinquent and he will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The principle of (sub-natural) justice. requires that the authority who has to take final decision should give an opportunity to the delinquent before imposing penalty upon the delinquent to represent himself before the disciplinary authority before it records his findings on the charges framed against the officer. In the instant case, it has not been done so. So, the order of punishment imposed is vitiated in law and is liable to be quashed. Illegality has been committed by the disciplinary authority from the stage when he received the report from the enquiry officer exonerating the petitioner. He did not follow the procedure prescribed in law. In the instant case, it has not been done so. So, the order of punishment imposed is vitiated in law and is liable to be quashed. Illegality has been committed by the disciplinary authority from the stage when he received the report from the enquiry officer exonerating the petitioner. He did not follow the procedure prescribed in law. Therefore, it will be interest of justice that the case should be remitted to the disciplinary authority for starting a proceeding from the above stage in accordance with law. 8 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2004 and 21.8.2005 passed by the respondents no. 3 and 4 are hereby quashed. The case is remitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, if he so chooses, would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner from the stage from where the illegality has been committed by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority will conclude it expeditiously, if he so chooses, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The question of payment of the salary for the period of suspension of the petitioner, would be decided by the disciplinary authority finally in accordance with law. With the above observation and direction, this application is disposed of. No order as to cost.